Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Amber Doe v. Sequoia Capital et al
as 2:2023cv06439
Plaintiff:
Amber Doe
Defendant:
Sequoia Capital, Michael Lewis Goguen, Two Bear Capital and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
BAPTISTE v. VOX MEDIA, INC. et al
as 1:2023cv02161
Plaintiff:
AMBER BAPTISTE
Defendant:
VOX MEDIA, INC., SEQUOIA CAPITAL, MICHAEL LEWIS GOGUEN and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Doe v. Sequoia Capital et al
as 1:2023cv05881
Plaintiff:
Amber Doe
Defendant:
Sequoia Capital, Michael Lewis Goguen, Two Bear Capital and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01553
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Cephalon, Inc. et al
as 1:2019op45841
Defendant:
Beverly Sackler, Richard S. Sackler, Sandoz, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Candy et al v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv02335
Plaintiff:
Animal Park, Care and Rescue, Inc., Tri-State Zoological Park of Western Maryland, Inc. and Robert L. Candy
Defendant:
Colin Henstock, Delcianna Winders, Chris Fontes and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964
Kevin Kerr v. Nation of Islam
as 15-1553
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN KERR, Whose Pseudonym is "Allah"
Defendant - Appellee:
NATION OF ISLAM
Qpay, Inc. v. Red Star Wireless et al
as 1:2010cv22768
Plaintiff:
Qpay, Inc.
Defendant:
Red Star Wireless, Dustin Mahoney and Tana Kerr
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Miller et al v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company et al
as 3:2001cv07273
Plaintiff:
Richard Miller and Clyde Minks
Defendant:
Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Donald Bagley, Craig Edwards and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
